Buffalo_Stampede Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Eagles spent, or will spend, $100+ million on OT's that gave up 21 sacks last year. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I thought it was 11... Now its 21? Man...he's giving up sacks in the offseason apparently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Read the post - he meant the 2 of them combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 I thought it was 11... Now its 21? Man...he's giving up sacks in the offseason apparently! Jason Peters 11.5 sacks at LT and Stacey Andrews 9.5 sacks at RT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Eagles spent, or will spend, $100+ million on OT's that gave up 21 sacks last year. Am I missing something? Yes. The Eagles are a SUCCESSFUL organization and value OL play. See the results lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Well then it should be OTs, not OT's. Sorry, just busting chops. I still dont quite understand the "gave up 11 sacks last year" stat. I've seen it debunked across the board several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 They're 35 games over .500 since Andy Reid became coach and making decisions and we're 18 games below in that same span? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 They're 35 games over .500 since Andy Reid became coach and making decisions and we're 18 games below in that same span? Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 They're 35 games over .500 since Andy Reid became coach and making decisions and we're 18 games below in that same span? Oh Kelly, please tell me you're not going to let good, sound logic derail cooked-up hatred for yet another high-profile athlete leaving Buffalo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 When will fans realize management is the key to winning and putting people in a position to win. When we needed a HC change, the Bills remained the same. The Eagles have a winning model proven over the last decade: they build from the OL and DL outward. The question everyone needs to ask themselves is this: Do you trust the Bills front office or Philadelphia's? And bear in mind the people in Buffalo are generally the same people who are 0-9 in playoff appearances. Philly? Seven playoff berths out of the past 10 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 When will fans realize management is the key to winning and putting people in a position to win. When we needed a HC change, the Bills remained the same. The Eagles have a winning model proven over the last decade: they build from the OL and DL outward. The question everyone needs to ask themselves is this: Do you trust the Bills front office or Philadelphia's? And bear in mind the people in Buffalo are generally the same people who are 0-9 in playoff appearances. Philly? Seven playoff berths out of the past 10 seasons. Not to mention that the Eagles have a long and storied history of NOT overpaying for excellent players they don't think are worth it. But this guy they think is worth it and more? This is the inverse of the old Groucho Marx line of never wanting to belong to a club that would have me as a member. As soon as they said yes to the deal we should have reneged and said, "See, I knew he was worth it!" I'm not insinuating every choice the Eagles make is right and that the Bills are wrong. But chances are they know what they are getting and they are willing to pay a TON for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 the iggles have had good o lines, but qb play and sick D has been what got them over the hump more times than not. mcnabb has been hit and hurt plenty of times, and only with TO were they ever at the top of the heap. look at the LTs of the final 8 teams. i think in an attempt to appreciate the o line we have completly over rated the LTs impact to a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Not to mention that the Eagles have a long and storied history of NOT overpaying for excellent players they don't think are worth it. But this guy they think is worth it and more? This is the inverse of the old Groucho Marx line of never wanting to belong to a club that would have me as a member. As soon as they said yes to the deal we should have reneged and said, "See, I knew he was worth it!" I'm not insinuating every choice the Eagles make is right and that the Bills are wrong. But chances are they know what they are getting and they are willing to pay a TON for it. KFBD, you've always been kinda the voice of reason around here. This is a tough issue, because it involves one of Buffalo's most maligned players in light of the holdout. I see this team just treading water and hoping that draft picks and/or untested players like Demetrius Bell are going to step up and perform at an average level. Andy Reid is the de facto GM, and he was rumored to have been out the door had Philly not made the playoffs. Our HC misses the playoffs three straight seasons and the team retains him. In the end, I think Peters wanted out, and this was his method of forcing the issue. I think he'll get decent money, but perhaps not 11M. And if that's the case, we'll have our answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 the iggles have had good o lines, but qb play and sick D has been what got them over the hump more times than not. mcnabb has been hit and hurt plenty of times, and only with TO were they ever at the top of the heap. look at the LTs of the final 8 teams. i think in an attempt to appreciate the o line we have completly over rated the LTs impact to a team. Is that why it's the 2nd highest paid position in the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 A couple of years ago we spent nearly a $100 million on our OL too and look where it got us. Anyways, I don't think Peter's replacement is going to play any worse than he did last year. Remember, he gave up 11 sacks, some of which lead to costly fumbles. If his replacement gives up less sacks that lead to fumbles, I say we improved. That said, Peter's has tons of potential and could have played much better last year. He purposely dogged it and if he was going to have a repeat season, then we don't need him around. Apparently, if a player wants a better contract and/or force a trade, they just have to stink it up one season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Eagles spent, or will spend, $100+ million on OT's that gave up 21 sacks last year. Am I missing something? Yes. You're missing that "sacks allowed" is a stat that fans like to throw around that means absolutely nothing to any halfway decent FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Eagles spent, or will spend, $100+ million on OT's that gave up 21 sacks last year. Am I missing something? Do some homework. Palmer was out for 12 games, willing but inexperienced Fitzgerald at the helm, a short-arming pouty Ocho Dinko, another worthless year from RB Chris Perry, an injured and so an ineffective Kenny Watson cut and brought back, several WR injuries, numerous other OL injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QB Bills Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Eagles spent, or will spend, $100+ million on OT's that gave up 21 sacks last year. Am I missing something? You are. It's a BS stat that a real football fan pays no attention to. Don't worry, there are many others on this board that also track it, and I wouldn't be surprised if Russ Brandon thought it held water also. !@#$ this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Maybe they will not give up as many sacks with McNabb and a good OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 They're 35 games over .500 since Andy Reid became coach and making decisions and we're 18 games below in that same span? And both teams have the same result to show for it. I'd have preferred the first of Philly's two #1s, but don't have a problem in trading Peters per se. I gotta believe there are more shoes to fall before the O-line situation becomes clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts